Here's the thing, WB's got a lot riding on this one film, or rather it's success...
It's cool that they think themselves about the superbowl(honestly a few trailers in the months prior and all is forgotten).

However it just doesn't seem like the type of decision you make when you got a lot riding on a film.
I still remember the wonders the Superbowl did for Transformers 3 and Captain America. not so much thor though. The spots themselves have to be on point.

Wasn't the Superbowl the first footage of Captain America though? Same for TF3 maybe?

I'm not too worried about the lack of Superbowl spot. Everytime I look at hopefuldreamers sig I am happy (4 months and a bit!). I think alot of people around here kind of underestimate the appeal of Superman, and I think Superman Returns wasn't as bad to his appeal as some people here believe. As in I don't think it really damaged him to a Batman & Robin extent.

Yes this is a reboot and they want to get that point across and I think the TV spots and whatever will do that job. The main thing that will help this film is if it's actually good. I think word of mouth is the most important thing with movies these days. Particularly if there is suddenly a culture built around it and it becomes popular to go and see it.

Yup. But I can't help feeling like he would've given the performance of his life in the role. Which is kinda sad because being passionate about the character, while commendable, can only take you so far, you know?

I always thought that Nicholas Cage would have made a better Batman than Superman; and that he could have been better for the role than Michael Keaton, or at least, just as good.

Regarding the Superbowl TV Spot, I'm surprised that considering that we just got a article from Variety saying on how Warner bros is awaiting to see on how well MOS does before moving towards a JLA movie, that Warner Bros. wouldn't then be going all out with their marketing strategy, meaning Super Bowl TV Spot and more.

This film definitely needs to make AT LEAST 500 million to be considered financially successfully.

Another note is that it seems we've finally gotten a confirmation supposedly on what the budget for the film is; which seems to be 225 million according to Empire.

Color me surprised since after the disappointment in SR, which only cost about 204 million to make, I would have assumed that Warner Bros. would be somewhat hesitant to dish out just as much, or even more money onto the character at this stage.

there is no other way to make a superman movie in 2013 on that scale with a lower budget IMO.

there is no other way to make a superman movie in 2013 on that scale with a lower budget IMO.

Tis true; I mean look at how much "Thor 1" suffered for having just a 175 million dollar budget. That film, considering the material and set of characters that they were dealing with, SHOULD have been bigger in scale, but it wasn't because they didn't have the budget for it, hence the obvious looking set pieces at times regarding the Frost Giant Planets and the less than exciting New Mexico sequence with some shoddy visual effects at times.

LOL..his performance made that movie watchable for me. Studying how a cobra moves. Nic Cage is ****ing awesome!

__________________
I like how people complain about the five thousand or so lives lost in MOS while totally ignoring the seven billion one hundred twenty-four million nine hundred ninety-five thousand other people Superman saved by taking out the World Engine.

Tis true; I mean look at how much "Thor 1" suffered for having just a 175 million dollar budget. That film, considering the material and set of characters that they were dealing with, SHOULD have been bigger in scale, but it wasn't because they didn't have the budget for it, hence the obvious looking set pieces at times regarding the Frost Giant Planets and the less than exciting New Mexico sequence with some shoddy visual effects at times.

i agree. WB compared to the other ''studio'' at least makes every movie expensive as they can. GL never looked cheap. the choice how to use the effects made some shots look bad and cartoony but you could see that they were expensive.

i agree. WB compared to the other ''studio'' at least makes every movie expensive as they can. GL never looked cheap. the choice how to use the effects made some shots look bad and cartoony but you could see that they were expensive.

Indeed; I still can't believe though that they thought alien look meant that they had to go entirely CGI since I've seen a good amount of films where they were able to design sets and costumes to look alien without relying entirely on CGI.

On another note, I'm glad that they kept emphasizing in the Empire article that they wouldn't depower Superman just for the sake or realism and that they were keeping faithful to the core of the character and it's just pretty much the approach towards the character that's being modernized in a sense.

Another note is that it seems we've finally gotten a confirmation supposedly on what the budget for the film is; which seems to be 225 million according to Empire.

Color me surprised since after the disappointment in SR, which only cost about 204 million to make, I would have assumed that Warner Bros. would be somewhat hesitant to dish out just as much, or even more money onto the character at this stage.

Wasn't that the cost of Green Lantern?

The first Transformers as well as Iron Man were both 140 and they looked great for their time(and ours). Still I'm glad Zack is getting the money he needs so that the effects won't be a problem.

I have a feeling TDKR cost about this much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smallville13

Wasn't the Superbowl the first footage of Captain America though? Same for TF3 maybe?

This is true, both films really shook the audience on this element and a few others. With TF it actually looked different than it used to as well. Due in part to a certain Director of Photography

Still I remember the twitter polls were a ablaze around these parts.

Any word of weather WB will give Pacific Rim a spot?
(They ILM to tighten up that cgi asap(which can only be so good with constant night shots)).

Quote:

Originally Posted by herolee10

Regarding the Superbowl TV Spot, I'm surprised that considering that we just got a article from Variety saying on how Warner bros is awaiting to see on how well MOS does before moving towards a JLA movie, that Warner Bros. wouldn't then be going all out with their marketing strategy, meaning Super Bowl TV Spot and more.

This film definitely needs to make AT LEAST 500 million to be considered financially successfully.

That is kinda strange isn't it. It's one thing to have a philosophy that works for most of their films. But when you start dealing with these sort of stakes and expectations, one would think you would put it all out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by herolee10

Tis true; I mean look at how much "Thor 1" suffered for having just a 175 million dollar budget. That film, considering the material and set of characters that they were dealing with, SHOULD have been bigger in scale, but it wasn't because they didn't have the budget for it, hence the obvious looking set pieces at times regarding the Frost Giant Planets and the less than exciting New Mexico sequence with some shoddy visual effects at times.

They had more than enough budget, it's just between that director and the vision of the people running marvel at the time, and that director, it was just conceived to be small.

Rooms ten times smaller have looked to have more scale under Ridley scotts vision when compared to that CW on steroids look Brannagh and the Marvel universe shot for Thor. You've gotta get your lighting on point and stop with plastic production.
Alan Taylor seems to have this problem solved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fanboiii

I didn't like how the constructs were done in GL, but the fight action was really well done. Martin Campbell just had no business doing CGI and sci fi.

Everytime I see Tron Legacy, from the constructs(mid construction) to the suits(I grew up during the Rayner era), to the world(Oa isn't just some star wars planet)...what a shame.

Color me surprised since after the disappointment in SR, which only cost about 204 million to make, I would have assumed that Warner Bros. would be somewhat hesitant to dish out just as much, or even more money onto the character at this stage.

Uh, where'd you get that estimate? I don't have an exact number to counter with, but I'm pretty sure SR's cost came in at several more dollars than $204 million. Maybe Jamie or Showtime can chime in?

Zod, Jorel and Krypton look awesome.I do worry that making Krypton look medieval may have downsides as it gives off asgard vibes and draws comparisons to Thor-Comparisons which I believe Thor will win no matter how good MOS is.Reason being Thor 2 is going full throttle with the sci fi fantasy whilst MOS is just gradually introducing it.

Regarding the budget...Chris Nolan calling the head of Warner Bros. Motion Picture department telling him he needs to check out Goyer's treatment of a Superman movie for modern audiences probably helped. Of course a week after that the film got greenlit and it's estimated budget.

I can't see a EW feature coming until a week before the film releases because the magazine is weekly it stays pretty topical to the TV/Movie events for the week and since their 2013 preview already featured MoS and a "new" photo I can't see them doing anything anytime soon.

Trailer #3? Hmm well I'd hope we only have to wait till March and if thats the case, well how about March 1st? Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures' Jack The Giant Slayer drops on that date.

Naaah it's a good possibility...I mean it's a big budget movie directed by Bryan Singer that WB even bumped back by 9 months to tune and finish the FX and 3D work and backed by the same production companies.

I honestly could see it being attached with that and seeing your first TV spots start airing during the big shows and events a couple of weeks after.